TND Risk Management CC v Mahikeng Local Municipality (M566/2016) [2018] ZANWHC 44 (4 October 2018)

TND Risk Management CC v Mahikeng Local Municipality (M566/2016) [2018] ZANWHC 44 (4 October 2018)

The court found that the plaintiff had proved on a balance of probabilities that it rendered services at the landfill site for the months of June, July, September, October and November 2015. The memoranda from the Acting Director Community Service recommended payment for these months, acknowledging that services were rendered, albeit not to the standard specified in the agreement. The absence of a penalty clause in the contract meant that the plaintiff could not be penalised for substandard performance. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to payment for August 2015, as it failed to prove that services were rendered during that month. Accordingly, the plaintiff was awarded...

Citation
[2018] ZANWHC 44
Parties
Plaintiff: TND Risk Management CC; Defendant: Mahikeng Local Municipality
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 October 2018
Case Number
M566/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff for Claim 1; Claim 2 dismissed.
Judges
PL Nobanda
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Specific Performance, Quantum of Damages, Interest a Tempore Morae
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Specific Performance Quantum of Damages Interest a Tempore Morae

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TND Risk Management CC

Plaintiff

Mahikeng Local Municipality

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to payment for invoices submitted for June, July, September, October and November 2015.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff rendered services during the relevant periods to justify payment.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to payment for August 2015.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had proved on a balance of probabilities that it rendered services at the landfill site for the months of June, July, September, October and November 2015. The memoranda from the Acting Director Community Service recommended payment for these months, acknowledging that services were rendered, albeit not to the standard specified in the agreement. The absence of a penalty clause in the contract meant that the plaintiff could not be penalised for substandard performance. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to payment for August 2015, as it failed to prove that services were rendered during that month. Accordingly, the plaintiff was awarded...

Court Disposition

Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff for Claim 1; Claim 2 dismissed.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff an amount of R899,500.00.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay interest on the said amount calculated at 9% per annum a tempore morae.